Page 442 - Offshore Electrical Engineering Manual

Background 429

Examination (scope, methodology and timing of verification activity) must be under-
taken strictly in accordance with the requirements of the Verification Scheme. If this con-
tains insufficient or unclear detail, the duty holder’s instruction should be obtained prior
to progressing. However, the requirements of each activity may be treated with some
flexibility (e.g., if the task can be undertaken in a slightly different way, provided that the
intent of the task and the acceptance criteria remain unchanged), to enable an examina-
tion to progress without the need for a revision of the Verification Scheme.

REPORTING ACTIVITIES

Reports should be issued individually against each examination activity listed in the
scheme. It is suggested the following information is included:

• Examination activity reference (including revision number),
• SECE,
• Performance standard,
• Description of the activity that has been completed,
• List of documentation examined/reviewed (including revision number),
• Description of activities still outstanding,
• Findings or conclusions (does the SECE/component meet the required perfor-
mance criteria?)

Where SECE/component fails to meet the required performance criteria, rec-
ommendations for remedial action may be specified by engineers appointed as ICP,
where required by the duty holder. Note that it is the duty holder’s responsibility –
not the ICP’s – to define the criticality of any remedial actions recommended.
Whatever the format of the deliverable confirming suitability of an SECE, the
basis for reaching that conclusion must be clearly stated, whether this be by review
of design documentation or test reports, by visual examination, by witnessing test-
ing, etc.
Document review status (e.g., status codes, approvals etc.) may be maintained
during a project, but should be recognised only as a secondary indicator of verifica-
tion status.
ICPs are often presented with results of ‘verification’ undertaken by other organ-
isations as evidence of an SECE’s, or part of an SECE’s, suitability (e.g., equipment
type approvals). In order to take credit of these for verification purposes (without
unnecessary duplication of effort), the ICP needs to confirm:

1. the independence of those undertaking the review,
2. that the approval covers the actual item being provided for the installation under
consideration,
3. that the terms of reference (performance criteria) correspond to those in the
Verification Scheme

All communications between the ICP and the regulator on matters pertaining to
verification should be via the duty holder for the installation, and also with ICP’s cli-
ent should they not be the duty holder.